Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canon and Nikon APS cameras

Bruce wrote:
About two years ago, my nearest independent camera store decided Sony
Alpha would be its major DSLR brand, replacing Nikon. The owner
decided that the A900 would give Sony's Alpha range the credibility it
desperately needed, and that a brand-topping full frame DSLR would
make people look again at the cheaper Alpha DSLRs.

Unfortunately, he was wrong, and the store went into liquidation last
month. He still offers some services working from home, and I am
still a customer of his. When I asked him about the reasons for the
closure of his business, he said "I wish I had stayed with Nikon".

Like it or not, the perception is that Sony is not a camera company
(or not a serious camera company). It's an electronics (primarily
audio & video) company. People's first thought when considering
spending a $1000 on a camera is not going to be Sony.

I suspect that for Sony to really do well in the camera business they
would have to be twice as good as Canon or Nikon. They're not and
never will be.

--
Ray Fischer

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...


Like it or not, the perception is that Sony is not a camera company
(or not a serious camera company). It's an electronics (primarily
audio & video) company.

That's true but Cameras are seen as electronic devices by most people.
Even I've been inpressed with their Trinitron line of TVs and monitors.
Even Apple used them for monitors at one point didn't they.

People's first thought when considering
spending a $1000 on a camera is not going to be Sony.

True, but there's no reason why they can;t make a good camera,
the optics is another matter, IU'm not sure if they sub-contract out or not
or produce their own.


I suspect that for Sony to really do well in the camera business they
would have to be twice as good as Canon or Nikon.

Or be significantly cheaper and still make a profit.



They're not and
never will be.

--
Ray Fischer

whisky-dave wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message

Like it or not, the perception is that Sony is not a camera company
(or not a serious camera company). It's an electronics (primarily
audio & video) company.

That's true but Cameras are seen as electronic devices by most people.

Not by people buying a $1000 SLR.

Even I've been inpressed with their Trinitron line of TVs and monitors.
Even Apple used them for monitors at one point didn't they.

Apple may maked fine computers but that doesn't mean that they can
make cameras. Ditto Sony.

People's first thought when considering
spending a $1000 on a camera is not going to be Sony.

True, but there's no reason why they can;t make a good camera,

Irrelevant. Market perception is what counts.

the optics is another matter, IU'm not sure if they sub-contract out or not
or produce their own.

Suppose you're a professional photographer. You're looking at
investing in a camera system to last many years which will consist of
camera, several lenses, flashes, and other accessories. Are you going
to take a chance that Sony will have all the needed gear, now and in
the future, and isn't just playing in a possible new business, or are
you going to go with a company that has been doing cameras for
decades and already sells all the gear you might need?

I suspect that for Sony to really do well in the camera business they
would have to be twice as good as Canon or Nikon.

Or be significantly cheaper and still make a profit.

Cheaper isn't enough. If you've wasted $10,000 on equipment that is
no longer supported then it's no consolation knowing that you "saved"
$2,000.

--
Ray Fischer

Ï "whisky-dave" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:hq9mt1$gpm$1@qmul...

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...


Like it or not, the perception is that Sony is not a camera company
(or not a serious camera company). It's an electronics (primarily
audio & video) company.

That's true but Cameras are seen as electronic devices by most people.
Even I've been inpressed with their Trinitron line of TVs and monitors.
Even Apple used them for monitors at one point didn't they.

The trinitron tvs were fine (mine bought in '95-a 20" one is still up and
running). But the monitors sucked-a friend had one, and the two wires
linking the mask were visible. I think that Sony is a good consumer
electronic manufacturer-my 29" CRT, DVD player, boombox and camcorder are
awesome. But , I have a Canon photo-printer, and a Samsung 20" LCD monitor.


People's first thought when considering
spending a $1000 on a camera is not going to be Sony.

True, but there's no reason why they can;t make a good camera,
the optics is another matter, IU'm not sure if they sub-contract out or
not
or produce their own.


I suspect that for Sony to really do well in the camera business they
would have to be twice as good as Canon or Nikon.

Or be significantly cheaper and still make a profit.



They're not and
never will be.


--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

In rec.photo.digital whisky-dave wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...

Like it or not, the perception is that Sony is not a camera company
(or not a serious camera company). It's an electronics (primarily
audio & video) company.

That's true but Cameras are seen as electronic devices by most people.
Even I've been inpressed with their Trinitron line of TVs and monitors.
Even Apple used them for monitors at one point didn't they.

People's first thought when considering
spending a $1000 on a camera is not going to be Sony.

True, but there's no reason why they can;t make a good camera,
the optics is another matter, IU'm not sure if they sub-contract out or not
or produce their own.

They produce their own using Minolta's optical facilities which they
bought. Their alpha series of DSLRs is based around Minolta's alpha
mount and is fully compatible with Minolta's old alpha lenses and
Minolta alpha compatibles from third party makers. Tamron, Sigma, and
Samyang are among those making Sony alpha compatible lenses. They
also have contractual arrangements with Tamron and Carl Zeiss. A few
of the lenses in their current line up are reviewed as being
unsurpassed in image quality, and a few are unique in what they offer,
such as their autofocusing 500mm reflex, or their 135mm STF (selective
transfer function, i.e. adjustable bokeh quality).

They lack the range of current new lenses of Nikon or Canon, but
they're working to address that. And being much the fastest growing
DSLR maker it doesn't look like they're giving up. Especially since
DSLRs are starting to move into movie compatible territory, and Sony
are already a market leader in professional movie cameras.

--
Chris Malcolm

On 10-04-16 13:13 , Chris Malcolm wrote:

also have contractual arrangements with Tamron and Carl Zeiss. A few
of the lenses in their current line up are reviewed as being
unsurpassed in image quality, and a few are unique in what they offer,
such as their autofocusing 500mm reflex, or their 135mm STF (selective
transfer function, i.e. adjustable bokeh quality).

"Smooth Trans Focus" actually.


--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital whisky-dave wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message

People's first thought when considering
spending a $1000 on a camera is not going to be Sony.

True, but there's no reason why they can;t make a good camera,
the optics is another matter, IU'm not sure if they sub-contract out or not
or produce their own.

They produce their own using Minolta's optical facilities which they
bought. Their alpha series of DSLRs is based around Minolta's alpha
mount and is fully compatible with Minolta's old alpha lenses and
Minolta alpha compatibles from third party makers. Tamron, Sigma, and
Samyang are among those making Sony alpha compatible lenses. They
also have contractual arrangements with Tamron and Carl Zeiss. A few
of the lenses in their current line up are reviewed as being
unsurpassed in image quality, and a few are unique in what they offer,
such as their autofocusing 500mm reflex, or their 135mm STF (selective
transfer function, i.e. adjustable bokeh quality).

They lack the range of current new lenses of Nikon or Canon, but
they're working to address that.

This isn't a charity. In order to compete they have to be much better
than Nikon and Canon.

They're not and never will be.

--
Ray Fischer

In rec.photo.digital Bruce wrote:
On 16 Apr 2010 17:13:39 GMT, Chris Malcolm
wrote:

A few
of the lenses in their current line up are reviewed as being
unsurpassed in image quality, and a few are unique in what they offer,
such as their autofocusing 500mm reflex, or their 135mm STF (selective
transfer function, i.e. adjustable bokeh quality).

Nikon did the adjustable bokeh thing all of 20 years ago with the AF
Nikkor 135mm f/2 DC. There is also an AF Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC for
people who don't subscribe to the mainly Japanese belief that 135mm is
a good focal length for portraits. So there is nothing "unique" about
Sony copying the idea two decades later, and nothing has ever come
close to the performance of the DC Nikkors.

Sony didn't copy the idea. The lens was issued by Minolta, and AFAIK
only a few years after the Nikkor DC. Sony have adapted the coatings
to digital and continued its production. And it's not a copy of the
Nikon design. It's an attempt to produce controllable good bokeh, but
by a completely different method which produces different image
characteristics. The Nikkor varies the amount of spherical aberration,
and as far as I know you have to choose whether that's to be applied
to foreground or background bokeh. Whereas the Sony/Minolta design
uses an apodization filter. The visual effects of the two approaches
are different.

Comparative reviews are very hard to find. It's arguable that the
Sony/Minolta approach is the more general and sophisticated
approach. But of course the quality of implementation will be crucial
in such high quality optics. There's also the visual differences. The
Nikkor DC produces the characteristic "glow" effect of soft focus, an
effect which is absent in the Sony/Minolta STF. So subjective
preferences will come into it as well.

If you know of a good comparative review of the two different lenses
I'd be interested to see it. As far as I have been able to discover
it's arguable which of the two approaches has resulted in a better
lens.

Still, they do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

What's interesting is that they didn't imitate. Minolta chose a
different and technologically more sophisticated approach.
Theoretically it could produce a better lens. The first question is
whether they actually implemented it sufficiently well to realise the
theoretical better performance. If so, the second question is whether
in practice the difference matters. It's possible the different kind
of bokeh produced by the Nikkor is subjectively preferable.

Regarding your ridiculous claim that some Sony lenses are reviewed as
"unsurpassed", the usual caveats about unreliable reviewers must be
repeated yet again. There is not a single Sony branded lens that is
not at least equalled by lenses from one or more other brands, and
they are usually well beaten.

A generalisation that's pretty much true of the lens range from most
of the good lens makers. They've all made duds, and nobody has
consistently produced clear winners. There are various lens properties
which contribute to general excellence. Suppose one lens has a sharper
centre but softer edges than another. Which is the best? It may come
down to preference. The one with the sharper centre would be best for
products and portraits, the one with the sharper edges better for
architecure and landscapes.

There's plenty of room for dispute and individual taste when trying to
decide which is of two good lenses is the best overall when each is
better than the other in some respect.

And Sony cannot legitimately claim the credit for Carl Zeiss branded
lenses that are designed and manufactured by others.

I don't get your point. They have a contract with Carl Zeiss to
produce lenses for them which Zeiss will not produce for any other
maker. What's wrong with that kind of approach to lenses? After all,
Nikon don't make their own sensors, they get Sony to make them. Does
that make Nikon an inferior camera maker to Sony who make their own
sensors?

You really should learn to keep your sycophancy in check, because in
this case, it is quite hilariously misplaced. ;-)

This could be an interesting discussion about matters of fact. That
you have found it necessary to throw in personal insults suggests that
you may have a different agenda. If you can tell me things I didn't
know about Sony and Nikon lenses I'll be interested. I don't claim to
be an expert and I'm willing to learn. If on the other hand you want a
****ing contest count me out.

--
Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:58:09 +0100, "whisky-dave"
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
.. .

Like it or not, the perception is that Sony is not a camera company
(or not a serious camera company). It's an electronics (primarily
audio & video) company.

That's true but Cameras are seen as electronic devices by most people.
Even I've been inpressed with their Trinitron line of TVs and monitors.
Even Apple used them for monitors at one point didn't they.

People's first thought when considering
spending a $1000 on a camera is not going to be Sony.

True, but there's no reason why they can;t make a good camera,
the optics is another matter, IU'm not sure if they sub-contract out or not
or produce their own.

Before taking over Konica Minolta, all Sony lenses were made by
subcontractors. I don't know whether the former Minolta factory
facilities were retained after the takeover, but the Carl Zeiss
branded lenses sold by Sony are made by Cosina. Indeed, all the Carl
Zeiss branded lenses on Sony cameras from before the K-M takeover were
also Cosina-made.

I suspect that for Sony to really do well in the camera business they
would have to be twice as good as Canon or Nikon.

Or be significantly cheaper and still make a profit.

In the UK, the Sony Alpha DSLRs are significantly cheaper than their
nearest Canon or Nikon equivalents, but they still don't sell. Perhaps
the problem is that they took over a failed brand (Konica Minolta)
whose sales were almost non-existent?

In the UK their market share is way behind Nikon and Canon. But it has
kept increasing year by year. Maybe not as fast as Sony had hoped, but
it's clearly going in the right direction. When you try to enter a new
market where there are existing dominant players there's no other way
of doing that to start at the bottom and work your way up. Sony do
seem to be working their way up. What more could you expect from a new
player?

--
Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital Bruce wrote:
On 17 Apr 2010 09:58:49 GMT, Chris Malcolm
wrote:

I don't get your point. They have a contract with Carl Zeiss to
produce lenses for them which Zeiss will not produce for any other
maker. What's wrong with that kind of approach to lenses?

What's wrong with it? It isn't true for a start.

Carl Zeiss does not produce any lenses for (D)SLRs. They are all
designed and manufactured under licence, in this case by Cosina.

Yes, that's how those Carl Zeiss branded lenses are produced. The
reason they bear the Zeiss name is because the licence includes Zeiss
being satisfied that the lenses are being produced to a high enough
standard to merit being called Carl Zeiss lenses. Zeiss are happy that
those lenses being labelled "Zeiss" will not sully their
reputation. Reviewers find the lenses to be of very high optical
quality. Some fussy Canon owners find them of sufficiently attractive
quality to convert them rather than use the corresponding Canon (or
Nikon) lens.

Have you something you wish to tell Zeiss about their licence
conditions being broken, their name being used on lenses which do not
deserve to be branded as "Zeiss"?

--
Chris Malcolm